SoxProspects News
|
|
|
|
Legal
Forum Ground Rules
The views expressed by the members of this Forum do not necessarily reflect the views of SoxProspects, LLC.
© 2003-2024 SoxProspects, LLC
|
|
|
|
|
Forum Home | Search | My Profile | Messages | Members | Help |
Welcome Guest. Please Login or Register.
The Red Sox Offseason Thread: Who do you want for 2019?
|
Post by beasleyrockah on Jan 20, 2019 11:56:40 GMT -5
I get the fear of losing Mookie, but have people watched the free agent market at all the past two years? If there's one "renegade" team not afraid to spend money it's the Red Sox. If Mookie wants to leave or if the Red Sox have some long term concerns with how he'll age that's one thing, but I can't see them simply getting outbid at this point. Free agency is no longer some boogeyman to fear, especially with the Yankees and Dodgers ownership currently caring more about falling in line with the league's effort to curb free agent spending than improving their team. I'm not saying it's collusion, but I don't believe every owner simultaneously realized long term FA contracts tend to have a high bust rate.
|
|
|
Post by umassgrad2005 on Jan 20, 2019 15:52:57 GMT -5
John Henry always has his limits on where he wants to go spending wise or payroll wise. Whether it's a player contract or the team's full payroll. He's operated like this since the moment he came to Boston. If I'm the players Union I'm using this in the labor battle. Henry makes it sound like we went crazy, when in reality we just spent what we should have based on revenue. One of the few big market teams that did. If I'm a reporter I'm asking him why payroll should decrease as revenue goes up? Stupid statement in my opinion, should have said something like the draft pick being moved back was the issue. Money isn't an issue, we aren't stupid and he just acted like we're stupid and it pisses me off!
|
|
|
Post by Don Caballero on Jan 21, 2019 12:47:08 GMT -5
If I'm the players Union I'm using this in the labor battle. Henry makes it sound like we went crazy, when in reality we just spent what we should have based on revenue. One of the few big market teams that did. If I'm a reporter I'm asking him why payroll should decrease as revenue goes up? Stupid statement in my opinion, should have said something like the draft pick being moved back was the issue. Money isn't an issue, we aren't stupid and he just acted like we're stupid and it pisses me off! To be fair, he could be bullsh*tting. These guys know what's up, they know eventually the Union is going to react and salaries/payroll are going to go up. They're likely trying to squeeze out an extra year or two of, hum, let's call them cost conscious decisions. Add in some inevitable corporatism and he's probably speaking for the other 29 dudes. Anyway, what could he stand to gain by saying otherwise?
|
|
|
Post by rjp313jr on Jan 21, 2019 14:47:56 GMT -5
If I'm the players Union I'm using this in the labor battle. Henry makes it sound like we went crazy, when in reality we just spent what we should have based on revenue. One of the few big market teams that did. If I'm a reporter I'm asking him why payroll should decrease as revenue goes up? Stupid statement in my opinion, should have said something like the draft pick being moved back was the issue. Money isn't an issue, we aren't stupid and he just acted like we're stupid and it pisses me off! To be fair, he could be bullsh*tting. These guys know what's up, they know eventually the Union is going to react and salaries/payroll are going to go up. They're likely trying to squeeze out an extra year or two of, hum, let's call them cost conscious decisions. Add in some inevitable corporatism and he's probably speaking for the other 29 dudes. Anyway, what could he stand to gain by saying otherwise? Considering the amount of people here who think they should be under the tax line; he has a lot to gain. Let’s them believe their reasoning even more and fan support for not spending is an owners dream scenario.
|
|
|
Post by telson13 on Jan 21, 2019 17:07:42 GMT -5
Not ‘19, but ‘20. I read a few tricklings-out reports alluding to the Sox extending Porcello. I don’t understand that at all, if true. Don’t get me wrong, he’s a fine, durable,!reliably solid pitcher. But at roughly $20M AAV, why on earth would a team commit to him for four years over, say, 7/$210M for Gerrit Cole? Idk, maybe my calculus n Porcello is off and he’ll be stuck with 3/$50M or something like that. But if he’s his usual 2.5-WAR self, given his health/innings, I think someone will give him a repeat of his current deal. And based on Corbin’s deal at 6/$140M, I don’t see Porcello getting a raise. Yeah, it’s three more years, and the total outlay $130M more, but on an AAV basis, Cole would command only about $10M more...for what’s likely to be 2 more wins (and, in the range where wins are tough to come by...it’s a lot harder to find a cost-effective 4.5-win pitcher than it is a 2.5-win pitcher). I could very well be undersestmating on Cole...certainly, NY has set themselves up to bid on him heavily, with a lot of expiring deals in the first 1-2 years he’d be on the team...but when it comes to the Sox, my sense is that they really need to go big in FA, and supplement the roster with cheap young players on the back end (Hernandez or Houck as the 5) versus using significant payroll space on semi-fungible performance. Mookie, Bogey, et al complicate things, and maybe they’re best-served wrapping their core up first, but I really hope the team doesn’t spend huge $ to preserve the status quo on players who don’t really look to move the needle much, if at all. I know there are issues with a “stars and scrubs” team, but if the “scrubs” are largely young players on career upswing, I think it’s a sensible approach for a big market team with good MLB talent evaluation.
|
|
|
Post by rjp313jr on Jan 21, 2019 17:13:34 GMT -5
Not ‘19, but ‘20. I read a few tricklings-out reports alluding to the Sox extending Porcello. I don’t understand that at all, if true. Don’t get me wrong, he’s a fine, durable,!reliably solid pitcher. But at roughly $20M AAV, why on earth would a team commit to him for four years over, say, 7/$210M for Gerrit Cole? Idk, maybe my calculus n Porcello is off and he’ll be stuck with 3/$50M or something like that. But if he’s his usual 2.5-WAR self, given his health/innings, I think someone will give him a repeat of his current deal. And based on Corbin’s deal at 6/$140M, I don’t see Porcello getting a raise. Yeah, it’s three more years, and the total outlay $130M more, but on an AAV basis, Cole would command only about $10M more...for what’s likely to be 2 more wins (and, in the range where wins are tough to come by...it’s a lot harder to find a cost-effective 4.5-win pitcher than it is a 2.5-win pitcher). I could very well be undersestmating on Cole...certainly, NY has set themselves up to bid on him heavily, with a lot of expiring deals in the first 1-2 years he’d be on the team...but when it comes to the Sox, my sense is that they really need to go big in FA, and supplement the roster with cheap young players on the back end (Hernandez or Houck as the 5) versus using significant payroll space on semi-fungible performance. Mookie, Bogey, et al complicate things, and maybe they’re best-served wrapping their core up first, but I really hope the team doesn’t spend huge $ to preserve the status quo on players who don’t really look to move the needle much, if at all. I know there are issues with a “stars and scrubs” team, but if the “scrubs” are largely young players on career upswing, I think it’s a sensible approach for a big market team with good MLB talent evaluation. So are you thinking Sale is gone? Because you can’t have Sale, Price and Cole... I expect Porcello to make less per year on his next contract. Maybe I’m crazy but I do and his durability is a god send for the rotation.
|
|
|
Post by Don Caballero on Jan 21, 2019 17:39:49 GMT -5
Considering the amount of people here who think they should be under the tax line; he has a lot to gain. Let’s them believe their reasoning even more and fan support for not spending is an owners dream scenario. Which I believe is his angle here. It kind of reminds me of my dad when I was younger, anything I would ask him for he would initially say no even if he knew from the start he would get me that thing. I had to insist at least once to get it and it always made me think like holy nuts I have the best dad ever. Henry is probably taking a similar approach here. Any money that he spends will be appreciated because he already said the metaphorical "no" early on (unless he goes 100% frugal, like Mos Def once said you push too hard and even numbers got limits).
|
|
|
Post by telson13 on Jan 22, 2019 23:03:14 GMT -5
Not ‘19, but ‘20. I read a few tricklings-out reports alluding to the Sox extending Porcello. I don’t understand that at all, if true. Don’t get me wrong, he’s a fine, durable,!reliably solid pitcher. But at roughly $20M AAV, why on earth would a team commit to him for four years over, say, 7/$210M for Gerrit Cole? Idk, maybe my calculus n Porcello is off and he’ll be stuck with 3/$50M or something like that. But if he’s his usual 2.5-WAR self, given his health/innings, I think someone will give him a repeat of his current deal. And based on Corbin’s deal at 6/$140M, I don’t see Porcello getting a raise. Yeah, it’s three more years, and the total outlay $130M more, but on an AAV basis, Cole would command only about $10M more...for what’s likely to be 2 more wins (and, in the range where wins are tough to come by...it’s a lot harder to find a cost-effective 4.5-win pitcher than it is a 2.5-win pitcher). I could very well be undersestmating on Cole...certainly, NY has set themselves up to bid on him heavily, with a lot of expiring deals in the first 1-2 years he’d be on the team...but when it comes to the Sox, my sense is that they really need to go big in FA, and supplement the roster with cheap young players on the back end (Hernandez or Houck as the 5) versus using significant payroll space on semi-fungible performance. Mookie, Bogey, et al complicate things, and maybe they’re best-served wrapping their core up first, but I really hope the team doesn’t spend huge $ to preserve the status quo on players who don’t really look to move the needle much, if at all. I know there are issues with a “stars and scrubs” team, but if the “scrubs” are largely young players on career upswing, I think it’s a sensible approach for a big market team with good MLB talent evaluation. So are you thinking Sale is gone? Because you can’t have Sale, Price and Cole... I expect Porcello to make less per year on his next contract. Maybe I’m crazy but I do and his durability is a god send for the rotation. Sort of...I’m thinking that a Porcello extension would only happen in the instance of Sale leaving, yes. I agree that i think it’s unlikely Porcello extends on a discount/salary cut. And i don’t think they can do Price/[Sale or Cole]/Porcello at $20M/Eovaldi at $17M/ERod at $10M or whatever his raise amounts to. I’m not sure how “real” those whispers are, anyway, for that reason. I think they almost *need* (and I hate the overuse of that word, but it may apply here) Sale or Cole, depending on Sale’s shoulder health, in which case Eovaldi is Porcello’s replacement and I hope they can extend Rodriguez (now, before he really breaks out and gets costly). In that scenario, the fifth starter is, ideally, a young guy they can break in reasonably carefully (given that they have Johnson and Velasquez), hopefully Houck or Hernandez (doing his best Sean Newcomb impression, 2018 version). They’re in a salary pickle and spending $20M annually on Porcello makes no sense; the payroll would be ludicrous but my rant is more to the point that, if they did keep Sale/Price/Eovaldi/Rodriguez, it would still make sense to pay Cole over Porcello. At least he would have trade value. Realistically, though, yes...it’s Sale/Cole, and then way down the list of options, Porcello.
|
|
|
Post by pedrofanforever45 on Jan 26, 2019 5:28:41 GMT -5
Good to see Tavarez back. He could actually be a okay 4th outfielder someday if he starts hitting again.
|
|
|
Post by Guidas on Jan 27, 2019 12:44:44 GMT -5
Given that there seems to be a bit of hesitation to give both Machado and Harper 10 year contracts, if they became available today for a 4 years, $40M a year deal, would anyone here pull the trigger on that for either? Ditto for Mookie?
|
|
gerry
Veteran
Enter your message here...
Posts: 1,663
|
Post by gerry on Jan 27, 2019 13:18:15 GMT -5
Given that there seems to be a bit of hesitation to give both Machado and Harper 10 year contracts, if they became available today for a 4 years, $40M a year deal, would anyone here pull the trigger on that for either? Ditto for Mookie? No.
|
|
gerry
Veteran
Enter your message here...
Posts: 1,663
|
Post by gerry on Jan 27, 2019 13:19:21 GMT -5
Given that there seems to be a bit of hesitation to give both Machado and Harper 10 year contracts, if they became available today for a 4 years, $40M a year deal, would anyone here pull the trigger on that for either? Ditto for Mookie? No. I just don’t see it, even for Mookie at this point.
|
|
|
Post by fenwaythehardway on Jan 27, 2019 16:03:01 GMT -5
Given that there seems to be a bit of hesitation to give both Machado and Harper 10 year contracts, if they became available today for a 4 years, $40M a year deal, would anyone here pull the trigger on that for either? Ditto for Mookie? Assuming this isn't some monkey's paw wish where ownership turns around and guts the rest of the roster to stay at the same payroll, absolutely.
|
|
gerry
Veteran
Enter your message here...
Posts: 1,663
|
Post by gerry on Jan 27, 2019 19:04:58 GMT -5
$40M for anyone absolutely does gut a team which is already struggling to reset within the next four years, while reducing the overall quality of that team. Who do we want to say goodbye to among XB, JBJ, (Mookie), Sale, Porcello, new RP. Pick any 3. For the streaky 2015 MVP or the immature, dirty 3B who wants to play SS? I don’t think even Mookie will shoot that high.
|
|
|
Post by rjp313jr on Jan 27, 2019 20:25:57 GMT -5
$40M for anyone absolutely does gut a team which is already struggling to reset within the next four years, while reducing the overall quality of that team. Who do we want to say goodbye to among XB, JBJ, (Mookie), Sale, Porcello, new RP. Pick any 3. For the streaky 2015 MVP or the immature, dirty 3B who wants to play SS? I don’t think even Mookie will shoot that high. It does when the owners won’t spend past some tax limit even though they make hundreds of millions whether they do or don’t.
|
|
gerry
Veteran
Enter your message here...
Posts: 1,663
|
Post by gerry on Jan 27, 2019 21:12:08 GMT -5
$40M for anyone absolutely does gut a team which is already struggling to reset within the next four years, while reducing the overall quality of that team. Who do we want to say goodbye to among XB, JBJ, (Mookie), Sale, Porcello, new RP. Pick any 3. For the streaky 2015 MVP or the immature, dirty 3B who wants to play SS? I don’t think even Mookie will shoot that high. It does when the owners won’t spend past some tax limit even though they make hundreds of millions whether they do or don’t. Absolutely agree that tax limits are arbitrary and increasingly ludicrous, even disgraceful in some cases, in this new model of profitability. Hopefully the MLBPA and owners are smart enough to create an enviroment and contract in which the Golden Goose smiles on everyone .... not just owners and top FA’s, but everyone in the system with equanimity. That said: 1. The Sox ownership group has increasingly stretched the generosity envelope beyond what almost any team is willing to spend. Of any group they deserve praise and thanks not barbs. Within this framework, any $40M contract would be devastating for any team trying to contend short and long term. 2. I hope, even with the new contract in place, that $40M for a “star” player remains rare, while $10-20M contracts for much of the team is the norm and miLB players get a living wage + benefits. The concept of Machado or Harper, even Mookie, getting $40M while Beni, Devers share $1.2M is crazy. And as unjust as owners pocketing more than their fair share.
|
|
|
Post by telson13 on Jan 28, 2019 21:37:46 GMT -5
If I'm the players Union I'm using this in the labor battle. Henry makes it sound like we went crazy, when in reality we just spent what we should have based on revenue. One of the few big market teams that did. If I'm a reporter I'm asking him why payroll should decrease as revenue goes up? Stupid statement in my opinion, should have said something like the draft pick being moved back was the issue. Money isn't an issue, we aren't stupid and he just acted like we're stupid and it pisses me off! To be fair, he could be bullsh*tting. These guys know what's up, they know eventually the Union is going to react and salaries/payroll are going to go up. They're likely trying to squeeze out an extra year or two of, hum, let's call them cost conscious decisions. Add in some inevitable corporatism and he's probably speaking for the other 29 dudes. Anyway, what could he stand to gain by saying otherwise? I think it makes tremendous sense re: individual players. And it makes sense, frankly, looking at whole payroll. What makes less sense and is a lot harder to justify is, as umass has talked about, rationalizing the *location* of the line he’s trying to draw. It’s like drawing the line “I won’t accept cheating in marriage.” Totally reasonable. Makes complete sense. But if after ten happy years of marriage he files for divorce because his wife got some incredible news and she’s so happy she kisses the dude she’s with who happens to be a lifelong friend with whom there’s no romantic attachment...eh, maybe that’s not where the line should be. Having boundaries can be very good, and is easily defensible. How and where one draws them can be very bad and much harder to defend.
|
|
|
Post by James Dunne on Jan 31, 2019 14:27:09 GMT -5
The thread title asks what we want for 2019, and I want this to mean that they're retiring #24 for Dewey.
|
|
redsox04071318champs
Veteran
Always hoping to make my handle even longer...
Posts: 15,645
Member is Online
|
Post by redsox04071318champs on Jan 31, 2019 14:46:38 GMT -5
The thread title asks what we want for 2019, and I want this to mean that they're retiring #24 for Dewey. Guess that means they're not retiring Lefty Grove's #10. I wish you were right - I could get behind Evans having his #24 retired. Wonder why Price is changing his number. I thought he was wearing #24 to honor a friend who had passed away.
|
|
|
Post by rjp313jr on Jan 31, 2019 16:51:03 GMT -5
The thread title asks what we want for 2019, and I want this to mean that they're retiring #24 for Dewey. Guess that means they're not retiring Lefty Grove's #10. I wish you were right - I could get behind Evans having his #24 retired. Wonder why Price is changing his number. I thought he was wearing #24 to honor a friend who had passed away. You mean 24 for Manny since he was better than Evans and actually delivered 2 championships. Including a WS MVP. Edit: sorry that comes off as a slam on Evans.... not meant to be. I just hate how underrated Manny has become.
|
|
|
Post by Canseco on Jan 31, 2019 16:55:35 GMT -5
A retired number should be reserved for the absolute elite of the elite over a long period of time for a franchise like ours. The Sox already have too many up there. Don’t get me started on the Celtics. The whole concept is sort of stupid, really. Do a ring of honor, build statues... whatever.
|
|
|
Post by James Dunne on Jan 31, 2019 17:04:32 GMT -5
Red Sox WAR leaderboard on Baseball Reference: On the top row is seven guys who have their numbers retired, one guy who never had his number officially retired but nobody has worn it in the 22 years since he left, one guy who is still playing (hopefully), two guys who pre-dated numbers, and Evans. Ramirez was one of the greatest hitters in history, but for the Red Sox to have 10 retired numbers and not have Evans be one of them is silly. It's pretty crazy that Mookie Betts is probably in that top row by the end of 2020.
|
|
redsox04071318champs
Veteran
Always hoping to make my handle even longer...
Posts: 15,645
Member is Online
|
Post by redsox04071318champs on Jan 31, 2019 17:27:09 GMT -5
Guess that means they're not retiring Lefty Grove's #10. I wish you were right - I could get behind Evans having his #24 retired. Wonder why Price is changing his number. I thought he was wearing #24 to honor a friend who had passed away. You mean 24 for Manny since he was better than Evans and actually delivered 2 championships. Including a WS MVP. Edit: sorry that comes off as a slam on Evans.... not meant to be. I just hate how underrated Manny has become. No, I meant Dwight Evans who played 19 years for the Red Sox and actually played defense extremely well unlike Manny and didn't take PEDs unlike Manny (do you think PEDs didn't help Manny's offensive numbers somewhat) and didn't shove down traveling secretary Jack McCormick before shooting his way out of town in search of the huge contract Scott Boras promised him. Look, don't mean to be overly harsh regarding Manny - I enjoyed watching him. He could be a hoot on defense and watching him hit was a pleasure although I wonder if and when he was doing PEDs with the Red Sox. I saw all of Manny's time with the Red Sox. I also saw Dwight Evans' career with the Red Sox when he had his offensive awakening, enough to appreciate him very much. Did you see Evans' career or was he just a stat line to you? I saw Evans age like fine wine offensively. I saw him get on base a lot and consistently hit a bunch of clutch homers. The Sox never won with Dwight Evans, but it was hardly his fault. He almost helped them win two championships. Beyond his World Series game 3 tying HR in the 9th inning, 1975, it was his catch in Game 6 that saved their bacon and gave them a chance to win. It was Evans in Game 7 of the 1986 Series that put the Sox up 1-0 with his 1st inning HR and he was the guy that hit an 8th inning 2 run double to bring them back to within 6-5 and give them a chance that they didn't wind up capitalizing. Wasn't the first time. Evans drew a leadoff walk in the last of the 8th of a 3-3 game during the 7th game of the 1975 World Series. Instead of igniting the rally to put the Sox ahead, the rally died instantly. Manny won the 2004 WS MVP and hit well, but his fielding nearly cost them Game 1. So when you say Manny lead them to two championships while Evans didn't I kind of have trouble with that argument when you consider all the breaks that are involved along the way. Again, no disrespect meant to Manny - he did play a huge part in the Red Sox winning culture, but when I think of #24 on the Red Sox I think of Dwight Evans, whose 19 seasons on the Sox are more impactful on my memory and as it was it was Dwight Evans who was terribly underrated. Jim Rice is in the HOF, but of the 3 outfield stars, Dwight Evans actually had the best career and should seriously be considered for the HOF. As it was, he got hosed in the 1981 AL MVP voting.
|
|
|
Post by rjp313jr on Jan 31, 2019 19:50:32 GMT -5
You mean 24 for Manny since he was better than Evans and actually delivered 2 championships. Including a WS MVP. Edit: sorry that comes off as a slam on Evans.... not meant to be. I just hate how underrated Manny has become. No, I meant Dwight Evans who played 19 years for the Red Sox and actually played defense extremely well unlike Manny and didn't take PEDs unlike Manny (do you think PEDs didn't help Manny's offensive numbers somewhat) and didn't shove down traveling secretary Jack McCormick before shooting his way out of town in search of the huge contract Scott Boras promised him. Look, don't mean to be overly harsh regarding Manny - I enjoyed watching him. He could be a hoot on defense and watching him hit was a pleasure although I wonder if and when he was doing PEDs with the Red Sox. I saw all of Manny's time with the Red Sox. I also saw Dwight Evans' career with the Red Sox when he had his offensive awakening, enough to appreciate him very much. Did you see Evans' career or was he just a stat line to you? I saw Evans age like fine wine offensively. I saw him get on base a lot and consistently hit a bunch of clutch homers. The Sox never won with Dwight Evans, but it was hardly his fault. He almost helped them win two championships. Beyond his World Series game 3 tying HR in the 9th inning, 1975, it was his catch in Game 6 that saved their bacon and gave them a chance to win. It was Evans in Game 7 of the 1986 Series that put the Sox up 1-0 with his 1st inning HR and he was the guy that hit an 8th inning 2 run double to bring them back to within 6-5 and give them a chance that they didn't wind up capitalizing. Wasn't the first time. Evans drew a leadoff walk in the last of the 8th of a 3-3 game during the 7th game of the 1975 World Series. Instead of igniting the rally to put the Sox ahead, the rally died instantly. Manny won the 2004 WS MVP and hit well, but his fielding nearly cost them Game 1. So when you say Manny lead them to two championships while Evans didn't I kind of have trouble with that argument when you consider all the breaks that are involved along the way. Again, no disrespect meant to Manny - he did play a huge part in the Red Sox winning culture, but when I think of #24 on the Red Sox I think of Dwight Evans, whose 19 seasons on the Sox are more impactful on my memory and as it was it was Dwight Evans who was terribly underrated. Jim Rice is in the HOF, but of the 3 outfield stars, Dwight Evans actually had the best career and should seriously be considered for the HOF. As it was, he got hosed in the 1981 AL MVP voting. I’m a little young for Evans.. i did see him but not his entire career by any stretch. Manny played in the PED era, what he did was against like competition and he was one of if not the best right handed hitters. Guy was a hitting savant. Yes, Evans spent his entire career here and that’s the best argument for it being his number but it wasn’t just his another great player, a better one, wore it after him. Just wasn’t with the Sox nearly as long. But yes it’s a Sox honor.
|
|
jimoh
Veteran
Posts: 3,967
|
Post by jimoh on Jan 31, 2019 20:08:12 GMT -5
Dwight Evans did everything he could to “deliver” a WS victory to the Sox in 1986. His catch in the sixth game was amazing.
|
|
|